Bouboulis

Allergia, Inc. v. Bouboulis

Good Law
229 F. Supp. 3d 1150·2017 WL 238368·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7759
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJanuary 19, 2017Case No.: 14-CV-1566 JLS (RBB)California4,810 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Honsammartino, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF LEGAL EXPENSES

(ECF No. 59)

Presently before the Court is Defendant Denis Bouboulis’ Motion for Advancement of Legal Expenses. (“Mot.,” ECF No. 59.) Also before the Court is Plaintiff Allergia, Inc.’s Response in Opposition to, (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 62), and Defendant’s Reply in Support of, (“Reply,” ECF No. 64), Defendant’s Motion. Plaintiff also filed an untimely supplemental response in opposition. (“Supp. Opp’n,” ECF No. 63.) The Court vacated the hearing on the Motion scheduled for August 25, 2016 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). (ECF No. 65.) After considering the parties’ arguments and the law, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Advancement of Legal Expenses.

BACKGROUND

Beginning several years ago, Defendant worked with Plaintiffs predeeessor-in-in-terest, CLRS Technology, Inc., to develop and invent medical devices and related methods for using phototherapeutics to alleviate the symptoms of allergic rhinitis. (Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) ¶ 9, ECF No. 53.) In exchange for these contributions, Defendant received 116,111 shares of CLRS common stock. (Id.)

On August 5, 2010, CLRS filed a provisional patent…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.